User talk:Muxxa

Deep ecology
Well, if you don't think ecosophy should be in the lead, you could always remove it or place it somewhere else in the article. --Viriditas | Talk 07:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the ecosophy article to include the sense of ecological + philosophical. Muxxa 05:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you know if it this term was coined by Guattari or not? --Viriditas | Talk 07:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Definitely not originally.. see the book by Naess in note 2, that was 1989. What is the policy for separating the two meanings? I know nothing of the work of Félix Guattari Muxxa 03:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From JimR ...
Hi Muxxa -- thanks for your message on my talk page. I like your point about everyone's changes being complementary: this is Wikipedia's great strength. I wish I had more time to try to contribute! You have done a marvellous job with the DE article.

A while ago on the DE talk page you asked "The ecofeminist criticism is very well written, but I'm not sure if it is a criticism as such, could it be reworked into the main article somewhere?" I think as it stands now after subsequent revision it is just about right. There was a substantial debate in the late 1980s I think, reflected in http://www.dhushara.com/book/renewal/voices2/deep.htm (a long series of extracts without a mention of copyright status). I've only browsed in this: do you think it's worth linking from the DE article?

Another page that seems relevant to DE both overall and with regard to Tao and Zen is Thomas Berry and the New Story. Do you know of any cross references between deep ecology and Berry's work which could justify a link to that page from the DE article?

JimR 06:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request for edit summary
Thank you for your contributions. And I have a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries more often when you contribute. An edit summary helps others understand what you changed when checking the watchlist or the recent changes, and often times complements studying the diff. Think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. I hope you don't mind. :) Cheers – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Earth After Us
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Earth After Us, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Book by author without wikipage - no indication that this book is particularly notable

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Passportguy (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Earth After Us


The article The Earth After Us has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * non-notable book

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Attenborough railway station
Hi, The cords in you edit are incorrect, some 30 miles out. Regards --palmiped | Talk  20:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @palmiped must have copied/pasted from the OSM browser when zoomed out

Reading Coachway
Hi, Just to make you aware I've nominated Reading Coachway for deletion at Articles for deletion/Reading Coachway (I'm only notifying you as you merged the content from one place to another), Thanks. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)